On Oct 19, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu>
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Richard Cleis <rcleis at me.com> wrote:
>> Does the following progression make sense, by ordinary standards of
>> Ameringlish?
>>>> (car '((a b c) x y z)) is '(a b c)
>>>> The value of (car '((a b c) x y z)) is (a b c)
>> Not to me.
>> (a b c)
>> is an expression, not a value. It may also be the print
> representation chosen by some particular implementation for some
> particular value, but then so is
>> /---+---+---\
> | a | b | c |
> \---+---+---/
>> (Do you see my point?)
I see your point and agree with it. However, we were presented with a
question that needed to be answered without arbitration involving
computer scientists. The questionable wording indicated to me that
the author simply meant: the car of ... is ___. Learning Scheme is
complicated by these issues of wording; I suppose it is an argument
for rigorous representation.
RAC
>>> Shriram
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
>http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme